Replies

(((This starkly contrasts with Fitzgerald’s investigation of the Plame leak case. Here the alleged underlying violation was of either the 1992 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the Identities Act) or the Espionage Act. The Identities Act prohibits disclosure of the identities of “covert” CIA agents, 50 USC § 421, and narrowly defines a “covert” CIA agent as an individual whose “identity . . . is classified information and . . . who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States[.]” The Espionage Act, 18 USC § 793 is equally narrow in that it applies only to a specifically listed set of disclosures, not including the disclosure of covert agents’ identities and prohibits such disclosure only if it is done “with intent or reason to believe the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation[.]”

Plame wasn’t a “covert” agent since she had returned to the United States more than five years before her identity was disclosed. There couldn’t have been a violation of the Espionage Act because “covert” agents’ identities aren’t covered by that act and any disclosure of her identity was to protect the United States from the damage she and her husband were doing to it, not with intent to use the knowledge to injure the United States or help a foreign power.

Nevertheless, Fitzgerald went ahead with the Plame investigation without any reasonable chance of discovering any underlying statutory violation)))
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh for Pete's sake. He wasn't just empowered to investigate that one statute. He was empowered to investigate any illegal leaking. That could have meant the covert identity act, the espionage act, misuse of classified information, violating Wilson's civil rights, etc etc etc

Ashcroft & Gonzales both thought it warranted an investigation and chose him to do it. I'll trust that they had more info about the case than any of us.

And all of the griping ignores a point Fitzgerald made strongly. That Libby's lies made it difficult (or even impossible) to discover whether any of those laws had been broken. That's why people get charged with perjury or obstruction.

If Fitzgerald was the partisan hack some are making him out to be - he could have indicted Libby under those laws, he could have indicted Rove, he could have dragged Cheney back in under oath. Even if he lost the cases 18 months from now the damage would have been enormous. I've seen ambitious prosecutors indict on flimsy charges knowing that they probably won't hold up. They hope that more evidence will come later, or that the perp will plead, or someone will flip. Fitzgerald didn't do any of that...did he?

All the initial referral covered was the Identities Act and, possibly, the Espionage Act. One afternoon's research would have shown him neither was violated. Anything he did afterwords was a deliberate attempt to manufacture crimes out of air, something he didn't try in the Harkin case, where he apparently did his best to avoid serious evidence of probable violation of the applicable underlying statute. All of this shows he has a profound personal agenda, driven by intense ambition, the become a Clinton AG, unaccountable as Reno was, as long as he complies with and facilitates Hillary's corrupt desires and goals.

Are you a Dummie?? Your post sounds like it.